1NT forcing

[VanBee]

In 2/1 system with 1NT forcing over majors, opener is supposed to bid his best minor which in 1♥ opening could be third and even second with 4 spades that can't be bid.

This seems quite unuseful to me, isn't better to use this bid for example to clarify opener hand strength?

1♥-1NT 2♣=12-13(14); 2♦=(14)15-16; 2♥=natural 6+♥.

What do you think about?

[Stephen Tu]

There are schemes (search on Gazilli , among others), that use a forcing 2c bid to eventually show various stronger hand types along with normal heart/club weaker ones.

 

Your scheme is significantly less useful. For one thing you have no bid for 17+, other than presumably 2nt or jump shift, which in standard 2/1 system is overbid (std jump shift = GF) and will get you too high with some frequency. Also, it is not so useful to distinguish between 12-14/15-16. If responder invite next round, opener can accept if stronger and not accept if weaker, it's not like responder has to decide between 2nt/3nt and opener is barred! Plus not having shown your distribution, you are behind in being able to show 5+/5+ shapes and 6-4 shapes, which is going to make it difficult to choose correct partials/games.

 

The standard way does have the advantage of allowing responder to play in 2m more often. Sometimes as responder you are weak with long clubs/diamonds, and don't particularly care if opener have only 2/3 cds as you have 5/6+.. Sometimes you are stiff/void in opener's first suit, hand play better cross-ruff in 4-3 fit anyway.

 

Basically you have to think about what is exchanged over the entirety of the auction, what contracts you reach at the end, not just what you know after the second bid. The 2m rebid in std 2/1 is rarely passed, and when passed it is often right.

[TylerE]

I hate this purposed scheme.

 

My recommendations:

 

Play 1NT *semi* forcing - never including a 3 card raise for openers major (find some other scheme to handle those - see addendum).

 

Open your (14+)15-17 5M balanced hands 1NT, not 1M. Then, you don't need a bid to show 15-16 after opening 1M, because you can't have that hand unless unbalanced, in which case you have a 2nd suit to bid naturally

 

Bids that exist to purely show point count, and do not otherwise clarify shape, are dumb. Don't play them.

 

Holding 3-3 or 4-4 in the minors always rebid 2♣, even if the ♦ are better.

 

 

Addendum:

 

My preferred basic major suit raise structure playing something 2/1ish

 

2M - 5-9, 3 cards

2NT - Jacoby

3♣ - 6-12, 4 cards, then 3♦ asks for range, then 3M = 6-9, anything else shows is natural and shows the 10-12 hand.

3♦ - 10-12, 3 cards

3M - 0-5, 4 cards

[fromageGB]

I don't think bids that describe strength (point count) rather than length are dumb. I also think that if you open 1M with a 5 card suit in the 1NT range, even when balanced, then you do need to distinguish the strength, as 12-16 is far too big a range for a simple invitation.

 

It is useful to be able to show strong opener hands artificially with 2♣, and if you are going to lose that natural minor, you may as well lose the other. So over a forcing NT you could reverse your bids and try

2♣ = unspecified 15+, sort of a weak gazzilli

2♦ = 12-14 without 6 hearts

2♥ = 12-14 with 6 hearts

3m = 15/16 and 5 card minor (don't bid 2♣ with this)

Then over 2♣ responder relays with 2♦ if he has any 8+ count, and opener clarifies his strength naturally with 2♥/♠/NT with 15/16, or bid at the 3 level to show 17+. If responder is worse than that he can bid anything other than 2♦ to play.

 

It is the same with 1♠ 1NT(forcing) of course.

 

That gives the strength and enables sensible contracts. You lose the ability to find weak 2m 4-4 fits or 5-3 fits, but you gain the benefits of finding the major fits. That's the trade-off involved in 1NT including a 5 card major or not.

[TylerE]

I don't think bids that describe strength (point count) rather than length are dumb. I also think that if you open 1M with a 5 card suit in the 1NT range, even when balanced, then you do need to distinguish the strength, as 12-16 is far too big a range for a simple invitation.

 

Yes, but then your range when you open 1M on a balanced hand is only 12-14, not 12-16, so you don't need a bid to unravel it, because you can't have the strong hand and no second suit to rebid. If you're 4522 you may as well just grit your teeth and rebid 2♥.

 

But I stand my statement that

 

1♥-1NT (forcing)

 

2♣ = 12-14, 0+ ♣

2♦ = 14-16, 0+ ♦

 

Is incredibly dumb.

[awm]

To give a bit more detail on why this is bad, responder might hold either of these hands for 1♠-1NT:

 

♠x

♥Kxx

♦Qxxx

♣Jxxxx

 

If opener rebids 2♣ or 2♦ showing 3+, responder is happy to pass. This will usually be an eight-card fit (sure 2♦ could be a 4-3 in the worst case). However, if opener's 2♣ or 2♦ just shows a point range, responder is now stuck for a bid. Sure he can pass but we could play a six card fit with an eight or nine card fit available.

 

♠xx

♥xxx

♦AQx

♣AJTxx

 

If opener rebids 2♣ natural, we are happy to raise. This will get us to a better partial if opener has a minimum. It will help us to reach the best game if opener has a nice hand (say he has ♠AKxxx ♥x ♦Kxx ♣Kxxx; five clubs is cold and six clubs is decent, and it would be embarrassing to play such a hand in 2NT or 3NT after opener makes an artificial 2♣ rebid showing "11-14").

 

The 15-16 point hands are pretty rare anyway, and you will usually reach a reasonable spot. It's not worth the lousy results on both the above pretty common hand types just to "show your points."

[fromageGB]

Yes, but then your range when you open 1M on a balanced hand is only 12-14, not 12-16, so you don't need a bid to unravel it, because you can't have the strong hand and no second suit to rebid.

 

The 15-16 point hands are pretty rare anyway

These sentiments are possibly normal for those who routinely open 1NT when they have a 5 card major that they would open with a different point count, but some people open 1♠ and 1♥ regardless of strength. In this style, 1NT denies a 5 card major. So the range for the 1M open is 12+ (commonly 11+ if 6 card) with NO GAP. Opener therefore can have a strong hand that needs unravelling, and the 15-16 point count range is not rare, more common than 17-18, and one of the objectives of continuations is to clarify the strength.

 

I think you will find a number of people who use a 2♣ rebid artificially, thus removing that possibility from the available contracts. One advantage is that it does prevent a 17+ opener jumping to the 3-level and going off when responder is weak.

 

Or do you both never jump, because after all, 17/18+ is even rarer, it's dumb to show strength, and you usually reach a reasonable spot?

[TylerE]

These sentiments are possibly normal for those who routinely open 1NT when they have a 5 card major that they would open with a different point count, but some people open 1♠ and 1♥ regardless of strength. In this style, 1NT denies a 5 card major.

 

Did you actually read my original post? It was predicated on opening 1N when in range, which I strongly feel is correct. You can't just ignore that and then snipe at the rest of my post.

[fromageGB]

Posts in sequence :

 

I also think that if you open 1M with a 5 card suit in the 1NT range, even when balanced, then you do need to distinguish the strength, as 12-16 is far too big a range for a simple invitation.

 

Yes, but then your range when you open 1M on a balanced hand is only 12-14, not 12-16, so you don't need a bid to unravel it, because you can't have the strong hand and no second suit to rebid.

 

Did you actually read my original post? It was predicated on opening 1N when in range, which I strongly feel is correct. You can't just ignore that and then snipe at the rest of my post.

No hard feelings, I am just making a valid suggestion to the OP. However, perhaps your comment should be addressed to yourself ...

[nige1]

In 2/1 system with 1NT forcing over majors, opener is supposed to bid his best minor which in 1♥ opening could be third and even second with 4 spades that can't be bid.

This seems quite unuseful to me, isn't better to use this bid for example to clarify opener hand strength?

1♥-1NT 2♣=12-13(14); 2♦=(14)15-16; 2♥=natural 6+♥. What do you think about?

IMO that could be an improvement on normal methods. In Scotland,

• John Matheson converted many of us to Gazzilli, a similar more orthodox scheme, where a 2♣ rebid is natural with ♣ or artificial with 16+ HCP and other bids show less.
• The heretic Charles Outred is threatening schism with a refinement, where 2♦ shows any hand with 6+ M.

[Zelandakh]

What do you think about?

If you are going to go down this route, it is considerably better to use 1♠ as your relay. For example, you could play:

 

1♥

==

1♠ = any invite or better without 4+ hearts

... - 1NT = any min without 4 spades

... - ... - 2♣ = any GF

... - ... - 2♦, 2♥, 2♠, 2NT, 3♣ = natural with invitational strength

... - 2♣ = 4+ spades

... - ... - 2♦ = any GF

... - ... - 2♥, 2♠, 2NT, 3♣, 3♦ = natural with invitational strength

... - 2♦ and up = GF without 4 spades

1NT = weak, 4+ spades, not forcing

2♣ = weak, 4+ clubs, <4 spades, not forcing

2♦ = weak, 5+ diamonds, <4 clubs, <4 spades, not forcing

2♥ = weak raise

2♠ and up = various raises with 4+ hearts

 

This accomplishes the main goal of a point count-based method in discovering quickly whether our side has enough for game on power without giving up on the all-important shape resolution. In addition to the excellent points Adam makes, you must also realise that sometimes (often) game makes because we have a fit and shape. A purely point-count method will not find these games, in addition to the problems of finding a playable low-level spot when there is no game available and issues when there is a fit in an unbid suit and the opponents jam the bidding.

 

Obviously there are many other possibilities around.

 

Just as a side note, I actually have some practical experience of a system with a component of this nature. My first partner forced upon us a 2♣ bid that asked about partner's strength, a convention that in turn made many ordinary hands practically unbiddable. I quickly found out the problem it was meant to solve and came up with an alternative compromise solution that was acceptable. Things were a lot smoother after that.

 

It is possible to build systems built on this concept but they really have to be designed from ground-up and not just tacked on to a natural method. And absolutely key is to start showing real suits as quickly as you can and not to get into too much detail on the strength too quickly. After all, just how important is the difference between 20hcp without fit and 22? And those are the hands where losing low-level space is critical because you want to stop quickly.